Jump to content

urdjur

Members
  • Content Count

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About urdjur

  1. That is interesting! So how has the difference between fiends and regular casters using True Seeing been implemented in SRv4? I mean, according to Relay they are using the same opcode, so what is causing Tolgerias in your example to "unsee" me when I cast regular Invisibility (or before it is broken), while fiends are unaffected?
  2. OH!!! Light bulb moment! At first I was thinking that your posts (Relay's and Bartimaeus') directly contradicted each other yet again, but then I realized what I had been missing! A classic. You, the player, does not equal the selected character. What Barti has been saying all along is that if a regular invisibility effect is recast, YOU THE PLAYER, cannot select that enemy as a target, for the simple fact that... well, it's invisible! It doesn't matter if you select Fred the Fighter or Dave the Diviner with True Seeing active or the Demogorgon himself, you still can't select the ta
  3. Thanks for the exhaustive reply. 1. Bummer. It kind of makes the thief ability situationally OP, and makes the refined illusion spell battle system in SRv4 somewhat moot, as long as your party has a thief. 2. I don't have a current install to test, but I have one reason to doubt a part of what you're saying here: I distinctly recall some demons even waaay back in vanilla being able to see through regular invisibility as an "innate ability" - that is, by virtue of the same opcode that I believe True Seeing now applies to its caster. For example, I recall one time when a scout in my pa
  4. I have now read through this entire thread and I'm baffled by the dedication and persistence you guys put into these last "finishing touches" that make all the difference for the player. I'm also amazed at how many things there are that can and have gone wrong, still! Keep up the good work! Having expressed my gratitude, I have a few suggestions, more on the flavor side of things. 1) With the new approach to invisibility counter-measures ("demon" opcode rather than dispelling), could you please bring the Thief ability in line with this, even though it's outside the scope of "spell"
  5. OK, the picture is getting clearer from reading your replies, and all the first page threads on the SR and SCS subforums If I understand correctly, SRR modifies the installation of any SR version to apply your changes? But was that only for v4b15, or is there still some point to using SRR if running v4b16? Is anything from SRR left out in v4b16, or will SRR 1.07 actually risk overwriting something that's even more updated in b16 compared to b15? The 4+3 remaining changes for a "final" v4 don't seem very important to me. I still find it hard to read up on what spells actually do now.
  6. Thanks for the quick reply. Yeah, enemy spell casters relying on a spell that players no longer have access to sounds terrible to me too, so I guess I would prefer SRR for that reason alone. What was the intent with SRR and is there any real hope in waiting for a SR V4 Final? Is there anything crucial that's left out of your SRR that is beyond for you to fix?
  7. Hi! I've been away from these forums for quite some time but I'm now contemplating a new playthrough, using SR and SCS as my main mods. I'm confused. The last days I've tried to get a grip on what the latest version of SR is and what is it compatible with, but I'm not sure I've gotten there. To sum up the situation as I understand it: 1) demivrgvs has left the forums before releasing SRv4. The latest official version of his work is SRv3.something and it has a readme that has consistent updated spell descriptions for its actual game effects. 2) kreso resumed work on SRv4 but is now al
  8. I will only comment sporadically on some parts of the first post as I don't really use Divine Spells that much. If the Create Undead spell line becomes incorporated into arcane spells, I suggest making these available to clerics with an evil/death-like domain. I'm not sure what your plans for Kit Revisions are, but I'd like it if there were many domain options (not necessarily many kits though, but I assume they'll go together). Similarly, the MS line could be made available to domains related to summoning etc. (In 3.5, I think all clerics had the full summon monster line available, but
  9. Probably not. But even if you leave everything as it is, you've already implicitly drawn a line right there, where some things make great sense and others less so. I'd say the more of these "finishing touches" you have time/interest to add, the better - but it's also fine as it is and a bottom priority. Ah, excellent. Thanks for clearing that up. Looks like non-detection will be a must, at least for some defensive strategies. Generally speaking, is it very difficult for David to adjust such things after a finalized version of Spell Revisions has been released? I understand th
  10. OK, seems like a good motive. Then it's not specifically summons that they need, but offensive spells. But I like your idea here. Perhaps there will be some sort of shadow evocation option for them too? Options like these alongside things like Phantasmal Killer and Weird should make Illusion a rather versatily speciality. On Evocation summons IMO, I think you should streamline the evocation spells in this line to build on the same mechanic. If Mordy Sword deals magic damage rather than physical damage, should it really have hit points at all? I think you should implement this similarly as
  11. First off, let me just say that the effort to fill every available spell slot with quality, balanced and fitting material is a commendable if formidable task. Kudos to you Demi! Now to the feedback you request in the OP: Will you include BG1 versions of the familiars, much like there are ToB versions of them? Otherwise, playing BGT(utu) with SRv4 and a protagonist arcane caster could amount to a free, fully fledged Pseudodragon from the get go, which is kinda like starting with a Glabrezu familiar in SoA. Level 1 MS-I: See my comments in the v4 Summons thread for the MS I-IX suit
  12. Excellent! Nice touch! My sentiments exactly. A mass heal trap + damage to non-undead would be a pretty powerful tool for a necromancer though I thought all AoE spells were made friendly for the AI, but perhaps SCS works differently? Wow, another link brimming with v4 material! *drool* Expect comments in that thread too later Why the hesitation? If it's programming, I know this has been done before in an old mod. If it's play balance, most thiefly functions can be had as level 2 spells already (knock/battering ram, find traps, invisibility) so trading 1 su
  13. Wow, this thread has been an interesting read. I really like what's in the pipeline so far. I have lots of feedback, though most things are in agreement with what has already been said. I'll get into specifics into another post later when I have more time, but here are some general comments. On "necromantic" damage: Skull Trap and ADHW has always been the "no brainer" AoE spells due to their damage type bypassing most immunities (and practicality). SRv3 balanced them pretty well, but for flavor reasons, I really think all constructs and undead (incl. Mordy Swords) should be immune to these
  14. ^This. Streamlining on a high level of detail might be the best compliment SR could get. It means you've already sorted out the big problems and we can start thinking about harmonizing aesthetics. Before, players we're complaining we had no roofs on buildings - now we're thinking about if the carpet should be burgundy or oxblood. My opinion on this in general is that consistency and predictability are quite important. A player should be able to read a spell description and draw appropriate conclusions. For example, a player familiar with invisible stalkers, know that they are wispy and ha
  15. Re: Spiders, I agree with Ardanis and Dakk. It would be nice if in-game spiders shared such immunities, but such consistency isn't mandatory IMO. Summoned fiends aren't identical to all in-game fiends either, no? Re: Mordy Sword. Agree with Demi. The idea of a 2nd level Web entangling a hovering +4 sword of force is strange. I like this, it makes it more balanced IMO and both genies present you with different tactical options/combinations. Which cloud spells? As elemental plane natives, I really think Djinn and Efreet should have the same basic immunities as other elemen
×
×
  • Create New...